From 1990 IPCC
“Since about 1976 the areal extent of sea-ice in the Northern Hemisphere has varied about a constant climatological level but in 1972-1975 sea-ice extent was significantly less”
This was before climate gate and a massive propaganda effort.

You seem to imply that glacier calving is a manifestation of unnatural processes? Lets be clear that is not the case. There will be calving no matter if it is cold with heavy accumulation of ice or if it is warm with less accumulation. Actually the real manifestation of true long term warming would be less calving as the face of the glacier would retreat away from it’s sea interface in the case of glaciers with minimal slope incline at the coast. But according to DMI data plots over all Greenland is NOT losing ice mass over all and THAT is the point.http://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/

I find it curious that even at DMI the statement made that “Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance. The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.” does not agree with their own plot of the data. And I wonder why that is?

Oh I should do the calculations instead of scientists? Nice disregard for quality-controlled science right there. Would you really rather trust a random dude on the internets instead of published research? If yes, you have a problem.

I am an engineer. We can do math. My 10 year old daughter does math when she makes a double batch of cookies.

Here’s the process. Interpret an annual loss from the chart. Divide the total mass of the Greenland Ice sheet by that projected loss.

For sea level rise, convert interpreted loss from above from mass to volume (no need to complicate the calculation by figuring a density difference between ice and water) and then divide that volume by the surface area of all of the world’s oceans. That should give you a height for the sea level rise.

Our dog did the math when he could choose between two uneven bowls of food. The visitor’s dog was larger and we gave him a bigger pile but ours got there first. He showed an open “disregard for quality-controlled science”.

Therein lies the problem. Cfgjd feels himself unworthy to do even the simplest calculations, if a more qualified person can be found. He feels that such matters should be handled by his betters. His mind can’t accept that he has no betters. Nor do I, nor does Dave, or Rah, or Gator, or anyone else. Whoever you are, no one has ever been better at being you than you are.. His is the perspective that comes from a hostility toward the idea of a higher power. If humanity is all that is, all that can be, then a person’s worth is determined by his value to humanity. Perversely, this rejection of a higher power leads directly to the elevation of mere mortals to that status. From this perspective, because Jim Hansen has been more consequential to humanity than I have, he must be existentially better than me. And because he’s better than me, his opinions are beyond both my comprehension, and my criticism. Totally lost in this mindset is the fact that some truths are absolute. 2+2=4, whether that’s said by a dullard or a genius. If Isaac Newton had said that 2+2=5, and Alert Einstein and Steven Hawking had agreed with him, they still wouldn’t be correct. But in the mindset of cfgjd, none of us mere mortals could possibly have the eminence to point out their error. Logic is irrelevant, because logic is a construct of human minds. We’re inferiors, therefore our logic is inferior, therefore our answers are inferior. That’s why cfgjd can’t be reasoned with. He doesn’t merely see US as incompetent in this discussion, he also sees HIMSELF as incompetent. To maintain consistency within his own world view, he has to defer to the most eminent person in the discussion. That person’s opinions carry more weight than any data, calculation, or logic, when presented by an inferior. Cfgjd’s only purpose here is to demonstrate his intelligence, through the only means available to an inferior; uncritical agreement with his betters. Those of us who subscribe to Thomas Jefferson’s belief that, “all men were created equal,” can’t have a rational discussion with people of this mindset, because the evidentiary rules are incompatible. To us, reality is independent from the credentials of the observer. To cfgjd, reality is a construct of the most credentialed observer.

Your “facts” do not match up with the observations of the real world. In fact that is the problem with all of you warmists and most of your claims. You claim the western ice shelf is losing ice mass. I provide one of two of the most recent and complete studies that both say it has actually been accumulating ice for the last decade despite the fact that a very recent seismic survey has found there more volcanic activity under that area than was previously known. You say it isn’t happening without even bothering to provide a single one of the several other older studies that have declared it was losing mass. And I’m the one that is “fact-resistant”?

Research advances and thus what we know changes as those that are doing real research work to find the FACTS! And you ignore their labors and findings as if they are irrelevant because it disputes what you want to believe. And I’m the one that is “fact-resistant”?

Yea, I’m bad. I’m just a dumb ass truck driver that has been trying to understand the science. I will freely admit that in some areas I am very much like a hog trying to figure out the workings of a wrist watch. I have no training in statistics and my math skills end at trig level. The math I know is that which I needed to do the various work I have done during my life. Be it ratios & proportions for dosage cal or figuring out the area of a helix or irregular shape or angles and miters or laying in a section or mortars. But what I have is a bunch more time in frozen wildernesses and mountains in the US and Europe than most people during which I observed the nature I was immersed in. Not just casual tourist like observation either because our very survival depended on knowing it. How many glaciers have you been on cfgjd? Ever self arrested and climbed out of a crevasse? Ever seen the strata of accumulated ice and or snow close up and personal? Ever even been on a rope line? Had an ice axe in your hand? Put in a snow screw that your own precious ass is going to hang off of? Lived outside during early winter above the arctic circle? Built and slept in a snow caves? Been caught in an avalanche? Ever even seen an avalanche up close and personal? Have you even seen an iceberg close up with your own eyes?

I also have pretty well developed bull shit detection ability and thus am very wary of politicians their motivations and those who serve them. And I have a very healthy skepticism of anyone so arrogantly ignorant as to believe that we humans have figured out how this climate works to the extent you and those you believe in claim. Even when so many claims have turned out to be false and predicted events have failed to occur.

And really all one needs to see is that your claiming the Greenland is losing ice mass when it’s been such a cold year that they couldn’t even grow fodder for their sheep and temps have been running well below freezing nearly all the time and the AMOC has been weakening so the FACT is that it is cold and the waters are getting colder also and will do so for some years to come.

Yes I have been caught in an avalanche, jumped over crevasses and skied on glaciers, been to Greenland and been talking to the top researchers who monitor the ice sheets. The fact is that three largely independent measurement-techniques of altimetry, gravity and SAR-velocity + SMB all show that both Greenland and WAIS (the S stands for Sheet BTW) are both losing mass since a couple of decades. That’s why the mass-loss is an established fact.

How do you define the phrase, “established fact”? Is that a point beyond which no further evidence can be allowed? Or is that the current understanding, based on the currently available data? Rah has presented you with data in opposition to what you call an established fact. There are only two possibilities. Either the new data is wrong, or the current understanding is incomplete. ALL data must be accommodated, either by falsification, or by modification of the current understanding. To do neither is to remove one’s self from the realm of science. So would you like to incorporate the data Rah has introduced, would you like to logically falsify it, or would you like to concede that you’re no longer discussing science? Those are the only three possible options. Failure to answer can only be interpreted as conceding that your position is not based in science.

I’m new to this site, but if you call yourself “Real Science” you’re belittling the work of any scientists who disagree with your findings. That’s counterproductive, to say the least. And whether or not your stats are better than the other fellow’s, doesn’t it make you a tad uneasy that your position dovetails with the likes of BP, Exxon, the Koch Brothers, etc., who for decades have denied any impact on air quality or the world’s climate from burning their products?

I’m just a reader of the site, but here’s my take:
When you mention BP, Exxon, and the Koch Brothers in your first post, you immediately identify yourself as a screaming liberal with no independent thought, capacity for logic, or desire to understand facts. I doubt you will be taken seriously.

If you’d like to assail any scientific reasoning you see printed here, by all means, do so. We’re happy to discuss actual science, whether or not we agree with the conclusions drawn. Your argument is no different than saying, “Pol Pot ate rice. I think Pol Pot was evil. If you don’t want me to think you’re evil, you’d better not eat rice.” It’s utterly devoid of both science and logic. Even if we accept your implication that the entities you mentioned above are evil, that has no bearing what so ever on the validity of any scientific positions supported by them. Does the fact that the American space program was led by Von Braun prove that Americans have never left the atmosphere?

You are cherry picking data again- one of the oldest cognitive biases – ice is growing faster than a few of the most recent years – so global warming is a hoax? Where do I begin? So many opportunities to pick low hanging fruit from all of your flawed “analyses” and your reliance on using weather to make climate arguments- ugh! Anyone with a half functional and real BS meter can see right through all your your biases and data analysis mistakes.

Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
Q. What’s the quickest way to get named, shamed, locked up and stoned, or perhaps burned at the stake, at the UN’s Paris climate gabfest?

A. Bring a slide of this rather inconvenient fact into the negotiating room, and question the Lysenkoists how is it possible for 2015 to be the “Hottest Year On Record” with record Arctic sea-ice growth?

If you click the link to “http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php”
You find out this below the graph:
“Sea ice extent in recent years (in million km2) for the northern hemisphere, as a
function of date.

Please notice, that the sea ice extent in this plot is calculated with the coastal zones masked out. To see the absolute extent, go to this page.”

When you click on “this page”
you get a different story.
CHERRY PICKING

Poor cfool, doesn’t understand that by not masking the coast, with all it fjords and inlets, and shelves, the error margin is greatly increased and is also much more liable to human bias and “adjustment” in deciding how much area there actually is.

cfool likes it when human bias by his alarmista mates comes into the result.

but absolutely hates it when a consistent, reliable, longer term measurement is used.